×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

167 comments

Coinsidense? (-1, Troll)

Pan T. Hose (707794) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610184)

Can this decision be related to the recent fact that IBM agreed to reduce dire working conditions (at least for some) workers?

Re:Coinsidense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610211)

Can this decision be related to the recent fact that IBM agreed to reduce dire working conditions (at least for some) workers?

Unlikely.

Re:Coinsidense? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610237)

(-1,Flamebait)

Re:Coinsidense? (1)

artifex2004 (766107) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610260)

Can this decision be related to the recent fact that IBM agreed to reduce dire working conditions (at least for some) workers?


Why would the granting of a technical specification certification be contingent upon a company's working environment?

P.S. The word is "coincidence."

Re:Coinsidense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610765)

It doesn't. But every moron and their mom are trying to push their agendas on slashdot these days.

Better Working Conditions - More Stable Software (-1, Flamebait)

reporter (666905) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610379)

IBM differs from Sun Microsystems. The former has a traditional working environment, and most of the workers are Americans (since IBM traditionally resists hiring H-1Bs without a Ph.D.). The language of communication among these workers is English, and the workers are skilled at documentation since English is their first language. Whenever a team makes a change in the software, an engineer thoroughly documents the change in a paper (now PDF) document. The "negative" in this scenario is that the pace of change in AIX is slow. When you document each implementation of a change in AIX before proceeding to implementing the next change, you tend to slow the pace of changes. Accusations that upgrades to AIX are slow are accurate.

Nonetheless, the benefit is stability. Slow, methodical processes tend to result in reliable, stable products.

By contrast, at Sun Microsystem, more than 50% of the employees are current or former H-1Bs. There is no common language of communication. There is minimal documentation. Each employee rushes to the next implementation while the Chinese (including Taiwanese and Hong Kong) manager breathes down her neck.

If you go back to old articles about SunOS when it was first upgraded to 64 bits (becoming Solaris), you will find plenty of articles describing the flaws and the lack of stability in the product. Over time, Sun removed enough of the bugs so that the product is about as stable as AIX. Yet, the customers who bought Solaris when it first appeared on the market paid the price of the mismanagement within Sun.

Similar comments apply to Microsoft. About 30% of its workforce is current or former H-1Bs. Look at how unstable MS-DOS and Windows 95/98 is.

IBM likely was the first to receive the UNIX certification because AIX is simply the most stable and reliable version of UNIX.

Re:Better Working Conditions - More Stable Softwar (1)

RWerp (798951) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610455)

So now we know. It's all because of these damn foreigners. Honestly, you can't accept the fact that Americans can write buggy software too, do you?

Cute but Pointless Comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610482)

So now we know. It's all because of these damn foreigners. Honestly, you can't accept the fact that Americans can write buggy software too, do you?

Wow. That's a "cute" but pointless comment. You did not even address the points in the grandparent article.

Are you an Indian bigot?

When all workers communicate in only 1 language (i.e. English), is the working environment more productive than the environment where there is a tower of babel? Is a worker who is fluent in English better able to write English documentation than a worker who speaks Mandarin and barely a word of English? You tell me, bigot.

Re:Cute but Pointless Comment (4, Funny)

upsidedown_duck (788782) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610512)


The curious thing about the argument regarding IBM is that it avoided the fact that many Americans are not fluent in English, and that IBM apparently must hire only the subset of Americans who are fluent in English. If they don't, and, in reality, they actually hire Americans with a broad spectrum of English proficiency, then the argument defending IBM is moot.

I've worked with Americans my whole life (being an in the USA and all), and, truly, many, if not a majority, of Americans act as if they had just learned their ABCs. It is quite depressing having to read problem reports or e-mails that look like they were written by second graders.

Re:Cute but Pointless Comment (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610623)

I don't believe you are an American. Reason? Simple. Because you use commas and complex sentences. And, to make things worse, you do it correctly. (If I were to guess, I would say: United Kingdom. Am I right?) That's why I don't believe in a single word in you post. Sorry.

Re:Cute but Pointless Comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610707)

Key sentence: "... (being an in the USA and all) ..."

He basically said he was a foreigner but "forgot" to mention his nationality.

Re:Cute but Pointless Comment (1)

upsidedown_duck (788782) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610764)


Sorry, I actually am a born-and-bred US citizen. My problem is that I paid attention to my Freshmen English professor, and I've regretted it almost every day.

Re:Cute but Pointless Comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610887)

Key sentence: "... (being an in the USA and all) ..."
He basically said he was a foreigner but "forgot" to mention his nationality.


He explicitly said that he was an American, but I decided not to trust him nevertheless, because of the reasons I wrote about. But you on the other hand--I'm sure you are an American, judging from that how fluent in English you are. "Why should I learn English, I'll never go to England!" A typical Yankee.

Re: Dear KKK member (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610532)

> Are you an Indian bigot?

Hmmm, who is bigotted?

You might not be aware of it, but there are ways to get around communication issues. All that is needed is to think about the problem and setup procedures to enhance communication. Most likely, the biggest communication hurdle is not language in general, but different office locations, especially when the timezones are far apart.

Re: Dear KKK member (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610624)

We're now talking about two entirely different things:

  1. Ethnicity/culture/language (they're tightly intertwined)
  2. Location
They both have issues. My coworkers are spread over the entire N.American continent, plus Germany and India. At least, these are the ones I deal with on a regular basis.

In my experience, location is a larger barrier to effective communication, if only because turn-around time when emailing with India from here (11.5 hours difference from MDT to at least their location in India) is so long that it takes forever to realise that there was a misunderstanding.

And then ethnicity/culture/language (here I refer to a person's "mother tongue") can incredibly multiple that time zone problem. Then again, so can attitude. I have native Chinese people working with me - those who have a positive attitude about trying to learn English and communicating effectively (and looking like they can communicate at a native-speaker's adult level in email) are much better than those who have no interest in improving their communication. (Guess which one is in management.)

Short version: yes, you can get around communication issues. But most of us want to concentrate on the work at hand, not on communication. ;-)

A Troll on a troll - mod down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610489)

I like this particular piece of crap:

SunOS when it was first upgraded to 64 bits (becoming Solaris)

True (1)

spinlocked (462072) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610955)

SunOS when it was first upgraded to 64 bits (becoming Solaris)

Indeed, SunOS became Solaris when Sun abandoned BSD in favour of SVR4. Solaris 7 was the first 64 version. As any fule kno.

Re:Better Working Conditions - More Stable Softwar (4, Interesting)

arivanov (12034) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610510)

Complete and utter bullshit. One of the biggest IBM research centers is in the german speaking bit of Switherland. Even as far back as 1995 and the OS2 Warp release development work was done in places like Bulgaria, Russia, Chech republic. Another large development center which deals with non-right-to-left writing direction languages is Egypt. None of these are natively english speaking. In fact IBM has been closing research facilities in English speaking countries (England) in favour of non-english speaking countries for more then 10 years.

You have got the wroing impression because IBM is a company that it is extremely strict on requiring every employee to know and use English for internal correspondence and documentation. But it is not an US company at all. In fact Sun is considerably more US. To be more exact it is a combination of Californian Silicon Valley "we are better then everyone" with typical college dropout vindictiveness. DNS, paying SCO, kicking Red Hat under the table, so on so fourth. To summarize - Sun is typical international corporation - it is present around the world, with nearly all directors and administrative personnel of any noticeable influence being American. IBM is and has been trully global for a very long time. At least as far back as the age of typewriters (and the Nazi affair).

Re:Better Working Conditions - More Stable Softwar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610710)

One of the biggest IBM research centers is in the german speaking bit of Switherland.

Are you a bigot?

I, nor anyone else, would expect an IBM subsidiary located in Germany to be chock full of English speakers. What I do expect is that IBM-Germany should be chock full of German speakers. They should be writing all documentation in German. (There may be some translation to English when the product is redeployed to, say, France.)

What I do expect is that IBM-USA should be chock full of English speakers writing all documentation in English.

If IBM-Germany hired all sorts of H-1B equivalents, bloating the workforce with Indians, Chinese, and anyone else who could not speak German fluently, then IBM-Germany would have a tower of babel. The quality of its software would degrade to the level of Sun-USA.

If IBM-USA hired all sorts of H-1B equivalents, bloating the workforce with Indians, Chinese, and anyone else who could not speak English fluently, then IBM-USA would have a tower of babel. The quality of its software would degrade to the level of Sun-USA.

Being typical of a bigot, you present "evidence" that is not evidence at all. A big IBM research center in german-speaking Switzerland would definitely not be speaking English. That center, in order to function properly, would be chock full of speakers of the native language (or languages) of Switzerland.

Are you an Indian bigot? You sound like one.

Re:Better Working Conditions - More Stable Softwar (3, Insightful)

janoc (699997) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610533)

I am taking offense with this comment. I am not American, neither H-1B visa holder and with such xenophobic attitude I will definitely not look for one.

Did you realize that those failures you described are first of all management failures rushing far from mature product to the market ? And the management is rarely consisting of H-1B visa holders, just the opposite - they are all Americans.

I am from the former Eastern Bloc and I was working for an outsourcing company for a while (for a German partner). The amounts of craptacular code written by supposedly superior Western programmers (and American too - one of the largest US jeans makers is using our software to design and cut jeans) were something incredible. So stop this elitist and xenophobic bullshit, please.

If you are unable to compete, either on salary or more like on quality terms, well, tough for you. Either adapt or die. It is the same for us, because the Indians and Chinese have even lower salaries than former Easterners. However, we are not whining and crying in a corner that those H-1Bs took our jobs, we are trying to outcompete them on things they cannot do. Try to do the same instead of this crap, OK ? Capitalism works both ways, you know.

Regards, jan

Re:Better Working Conditions - More Stable Softwar (4, Informative)

mlyle (148697) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610761)

If you go back to old articles about SunOS when it was first upgraded to 64 bits (becoming Solaris), you will find plenty of articles describing the flaws and the lack of stability in the product.

Are you on crack?

Solaris 1.x was SunOS 4 (BSD derived)+ OpenWindows; Solaris 2.x was SunOS 5 (SysV derived) + OpenWindows. Both were 32 bit operating systems running on 32 bit hardware (ignoring things like large file support), until UltraSPARC hardware came along and Solaris 7/2.7 added support for 64 bit operation in 1998 (this is 7 years after Solaris 1.0 shipped, and 6 years after Solaris 2.0 shipped).

Your post is factually inaccurate, bigoted, etc.

Re:Better Working Conditions - More Stable Softwar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610947)

Nonetheless, the benefit is stability. Slow, methodical processes tend to result in reliable, stable products.

Yep, the process worked perfectly for NASA! Nothing ever goes wrong with the Space Shuttle or the unmanned Mars missions!

Oh wait...

Re:Better Working Conditions - More Stable Softwar (3, Insightful)

isdnip (49656) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610996)

Half right. It has nothing to do with the nationality, national origin, or immigration status of employees. It has a lot to do with what is expected of employees, and what processes are involved in writing software.

I worked for some years for one of IBM's competitors. I wasn't a tech writer there, but looked into it before joining. The software development process involved working closely with the writers. The programmer's job, in essence, was to make it work according to the documentation, not the other way around. The relaese cycle was slow, but it was industrial strength code. Something I miss today.

Oddly, it seems to me that most of the tech writers working around here nowadays -- in English -- are not native speakers. Most are Russian. They take care with the language that a native usually misses. But they're not programmers. It's a rare programmer who can write decent text.

Regular (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610186)

This is the most regular first post ever: First post.

Re:Regular (-1, Offtopic)

glassjaw rocks (793596) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610261)

yeah, except you FAILED IT. get out of my sight ass hat.

Re:Regular (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610267)

Just like the average first post. Yep, seems like a very regular first post post to me.

Recieve (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610190)

I recieved this news when I opened slashdot web page.

Re:Recieve (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610374)

i before e, except after c Receive.

Please don't vote (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610198)

Please don't vote [derer.com] Too many uninformed people will be voting this year.

Re:Please don't vote (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610292)

What the hell is redundant about this post? This is the first time it has ever been posted to slashdot. Offtopic maybe, but redundant my ass.

perfect (5, Funny)

OffTheLip (636691) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610199)

IBM is rivaling Microsoft's uncany knack for aligning their company with revelant dates.

Re:perfect (1)

diersing (679767) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610312)

Because a business trying to map thier IT strategy based on time-based fiscal budgets would have no need to know when certain technologies will be available.

Noo, a speling eror in the topic (-1, Offtopic)

latroM (652152) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610217)

Receive \Re*ceive"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Received}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Receiving}.] [OF. receiver, recevoir, F. recevoir, fr. L. recipere; pref. re- re- + capere to take, seize. See See {Capable}, {Heave}, and cf. {Receipt}, {Reception}, {Recipe}.] 1. To take, as something that is offered, given, committed, sent, paid, or the like; to accept; as, to receive money offered in payment of a debt; to receive a gift, a message, or a letter.

Re:Noo, a speling eror in the topic (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610243)

think back to school though

"i before e"

off-brand Unices (5, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610224)

No mention anywhere in the branded products register of any Linux/BSD distribution, or Mac OS X. Are any companies still developing software to this certification, or requiring it?

I thought it was always strictly a UNIX® thang that was never important to the noncommercial BSDs, Linux, or OS X. That doesn't mean it isn't important to the markets that still rely on it for interoperability.

Re:off-brand Unices (-1)

SalsaDoom (14830) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610244)

Reality check: OSX is commerical. There is some debate whether is an unix or not, but its definatly, unquestionably, unarguably commerical.

--SD

Re:off-brand Unices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610287)

You fail at English. He never claimed OS X was noncommercial.

Re:off-brand Unices (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610464)

See those commas and the word "or"? That's the syntax in written language for a "list". Each item in the list is a discrete object, as in this HTML version of the list:

noncommercial BSDs

Linux

OS XNote that there is nothing in this list to suggest that the adjective included in the first item applies to the others. Granted, the earlier syntax is a little ambiguous, but from the context, in which OS X was listed separately, despite the fact that it is a BSD, indicates that a distinction was being made between the noncommercial BSDs and the other BSDs (which would include the late BSDi and the still-thriving OS X).

Re:off-brand Unices (3, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610384)

IIRC, the certification is mostly for branding. And the branding is rediculously expensive just for the licence fees, not counting the system modifications needed to comply with the standard.

It costs money (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610391)

You have to pay big $$$ to be evaluated by the standards group.

I'm sure any open-source unix project with that kind of money has better ways to spend it.

Re:off-brand Unices (3, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610758)

Certification is really for paperwork.

Think of government institutions for example that require that a platform must be Unix, VMS, or Windows.

If you want to try Linux guess what? You can't since according to the rules and regulations it is not a real unix. At least in the defense department and you can get in big trouble otherwise. Same is true for private businesses that deal with governmental contracts which state what they must run.

Its quite silly really, but yes Linux is used commercially and its quite important for government contracts to be officially labelled as a unix. A C2 certification would be nice as well since only Windows, OS/390, and AIX are officially labelled secure enough according to government paperwork thanks to the silly label.

To illustrate the point, why do you think MS invested so much money into making sure NT4 had limited and sorry possix support? The answer was to make NT4 a viable possix certified platform for the US government even though it never really was fully compatible, it was just the label.

SuSE Linux... (3, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610879)

...actually has got a C2 certification, with help from IBM. As such, the German distribution is the only one that can legally be used by the US DoD. Ok, so the invasion takes place 50 years later than planned. What's a bit of transatlantic lag?

Re:off-brand Unices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610985)

I guess Stallman could not bitch about calling a UNIX2003 certified linux GNU/Linux. heh

UNIX 2003? (-1, Redundant)

Lalakis (308990) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610234)

Unix 2003? I wonder who will come up with Linux 2004 and lead the way :P

Re:UNIX 2003? (2, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610271)


That'll be tough. The "Distros" can't even decide on what files to put in what directories ("Does that go in /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin...")

And, besides, Linux is just the kernel.

Re:UNIX 2003? (1)

Krunch (704330) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610340)

"Does that go in /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin..."
That's easy: /bin is for user (no need to be root) programs needed for system rescue (when /usr can't be mounted), /usr/bin is for all user programs installed by the OS and /usr/local/bin is for locally installed (not with apt/urmpi/...) user programs. I don't know a recent Linux distro that doesn't follow this convention. However it's true there is some real issue with filesystem hierarchy and not all distro do it the same way but /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin is usually not a problem.

Re:UNIX 2003? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610591)

The problem is mainly that the filesystem is a hierarchy.

Re:UNIX 2003? (3, Informative)

RWerp (798951) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610429)

That'll be tough. The "Distros" can't even decide on what files to put in what directories [...]

There is a standard [pathname.com] on that.

Re:UNIX 2003? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610545)

Might be Red Hat AS 4, released at the end of 2004.
Followed up by Slackware 2004.12, followed by Debian SID 2004.12.31
or Gentoo 2005.01.12-02:22.
"linux standards" "compatability". Right.

Re:UNIX 2003? (3, Insightful)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610833)

Linux should follow Unix standards, and this is rather important since the Unix standards tend to be designed to assure source compatability, that the base libraries, kernel, and environment follow the same standards so that software and application libraries can compile on any Unix-compliant OS with no modification. This is essential to having true OS choice because if you want to switch OSs its nice to be able to take your applications with you. Furthermore, since it allows the same software to be compiled on different OSs, all Unix OSs can co-exist and benefit from the software written for each other, so each OS doesnt have to have a set of applications rewritten for it, which wastes time. Linux shouldnt have the "take over the world" mentality and realise that people do deserve OS choice and thus support standards to allow people to move freely between Linux and other Unix OSs.

Re:UNIX 2003? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10611120)

This is rather silly. Next you'll say Linux should follow the Apple ][ spec.

Linux should follow the LSB, and if Unix wants to survive, it should strive to follow the LSB as well.

Much of Linux's strength is in _not_ being constrained by legacy APIs. The Linux market is large enough that it can and should define its own standards to meet its own needs.

Standards... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610250)


No mention anywhere in the branded products register of any Linux/BSD distribution, or Mac OS X. Are any companies still developing software to this certification, or requiring it?"

Companies and groups that are truly interested in standards will care and require it. Unfortunately all Linux distributions and BSD projects are not even close to being a Unix certified product. And the BSD families are much closer than Linux.

MacOSX could be with some cash (which they have lots of) but their target markets aren't hardcore techies, it's graphic designers and iPod buyers.

Re:Standards... (5, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610422)

I agree. While Apple is trying to get their machines in the server room (especially for small businesses) and they are nice machines, they are definatly not aimed at the kind of places that would probably demand this certification. I would think this kind of thing would be more apt to be a requirement for large contracts at large companies (Fortune 500 and such), where if they wanted to they would have the resources to work around the bits that are missing from OS X (whatever those are, no idea) if they really cared.

I don't think Apple would get any real benefit (at least in the short term) from such a certification. They should get into more server rooms first.

BSD closer? Not. (1)

r00t (33219) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610484)

ps -u root

That's been a part of POSIX since 1988. Even SCO
gets this one right.

Come back and discuss things again after you've
fixed the blatent and willfull standard violations.

Re:BSD closer? Not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610504)


Shows me a bunch of root processes (in FreeBSD)

Re:Standards... (4, Interesting)

TiMac (621390) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610582)

Mac OS X COULD be, except for legal issues. The Open Group sued Apple years ago (link [com.com]) over Apple's use of UNIX in regards to Mac OS X, and the lawsuit was delayed [computerweekly.com] last year until this year....I don't remember hearing anything more about it since....and I can't find any new info. Apple is fighting the very idea that Open Group has a trademark on UNIX anymore, claiming the term generic. Might weaken their case if they paid to license it now.

Re:Standards... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610642)

I don't think that no linux distro is close. I remember yggsadril or laser moon getting their cut posix certified about 10 years back. As I remember it there were all but certified as "UNIX."

Re:Standards... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610662)

Free/Open/Net BSD are not even close to POSIX conformance, a requirement for the Single UNIX Specification. It has been a goal of Linux and the GNU projectto be as POSIX compliant as possible, and conform to the Single Unix Specification. www.kernel.org outlines this

FreeBSD for example still lacks a POSIX compliant threading implementation in a release.

Only just this summer has FreeBSD got the OK from ieee and the Open Group to integrate POSIX features...

http://standards.ieee.org/announcements/pr_posix bs d.html

It should be stated that sense there are more Linux based servers sold than UNIX. GNU/Linux should be able to define its own standards, like LSB.

Why companies don't care about UNIX2003 any longer (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610285)

I think this picture [img54.exs.cx] explains it adequately. ;-)

I just find it interesting... (3, Funny)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610310)

that this standard is called Unix 2003, and now (towards the end of 2004) there is exactly one system which is certified. Compare to the rest of the software world... :)

Re:I just find it interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610486)

You mean like Windows 95, 98 and 2000?

Re:I just find it interesting... (2, Insightful)

thodi (37956) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610527)

Yeah, like all of those fully C99-compliant C-compilers you see everywhere now, at the end of 2004 :-/

Yes, but how to promote this achievment? (4, Funny)

hey! (33014) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610314)

I can see the ads now:

AIX: the only operating system that supports the Unix standard!


Not exactly a selling point for either, eh?

Re:Yes, but how to promote this achievment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610790)

IBM isn't Apple .. they don't usually give misleading statements.

wow.. 28 comments (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610377)

... and still no SCO jokes.

Re:wow.. 28 comments (3, Informative)

arivanov (12034) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610460)

Well... The results themselves are the best joke as they have neither 2003, nor 1998. In fact the only cert they hold is 1995 so they do not have a product that is legally entitled to be called Unix(R) according to the current specification and Open Group requirements (2003 is next spec, 1998 is current, 1995 is obsolete).

Well here's a SCO joke.... (2, Funny)

overbyj (696078) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610474)

Why did Darl McBride cross the road?

Because his code had been misappropriated into the chicken which was now on the other side.

How about... (1)

WarMonkey (721558) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610412)

Unix Tournament 2003?

All these corporate suits and devils and penguins, running around w/ rocket launchers and sniper rifles. Deathmatch, maybe some capture the flag -- it could work...

What is the point ? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610441)

The real question is how much this certification matters, if it appears it doesn't co-exist with POSIX standards.

As discussed on comp.unix.solaris a few days ago - POSIX specifies (amongst many other things) what various flags passed to uname should produce. AIX (which my collegues and I always referred to as "Aix Ain't Unix" due to it's...ahem...'unique' approach to things) breaks this. So it shouldn't pass strict POSIX conformance testing, yet it passes UNIX03. So, what does this cert mean in reality, given that AIX is one of the most "non-Unixy" systems around anyway ? Who is really going to go for AIX over HP-UX or Solaris just because AIX got a cert ?

Re:What is the point ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610492)

AIX (which my collegues and I always referred to as "Aix Ain't Unix"

Wouldn't "Aix Isn't uniX" be a more correct expansion (both grammatically and acronymically)?

Re:What is the point ? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610774)

ANd sadly NT4 is posix certified??

What is this world coming too?

It just comes to show that certifications can easily be achieved by following the letter and not spirit of why the certifications are there in the first place.

slow news day? (5, Funny)

jmank88 (813483) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610457)

you know its a slow news day when the article starts with "Last Wednesday..." -jordan

Linux ? (1, Troll)

PureCreditor (300490) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610476)

BSD is a true Unix, so applying for the certification is reasonable, but wasn't Linux (or its predecessor Minix) a Unix-clone ? It can be POSIX-certified, but Unix-certified is a bit stretching the truth ? That's similar to a street bootlegger asking Louis Vuitton's Paris headquarters to certify their $15 LV bags for "authenticity."

Re:Linux ? Right & Wrong (2, Interesting)

HighOrbit (631451) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610539)

You Both Right and Wrong.

Right - BSD is a genuine descendant of the original AT&T Unix. It is a Unix in everything but name. Linux is a completely new clone

The wrong part is about what it takes to be a brand-name UNIX(TM). No descent from AT&T Unix is required and no code simularity is required. The only requirement is that the system meet certain inter-operability standards that are defined in the Unix Specification from Open Group. So a completely new clone like Linux could (theoretically) meet the standard, get certified, and call itself UNIX(TM).

Re:Linux ? (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610567)

  1. Minix is a "predecessor" to Linux only chronologically, not in terms of derivation, as you seem to be implying.
  2. This certification is about operation, not source code or derivation. They're not saying "This is based on an old Unix," they're saying "This works like a current UNIX® is supposed to." Heck, if Microsoft could get Windows to do everything the OpenGroup's spec called for, and ponied up the cash, they could start calling it "Microsoft Windows UNIX®". And it would be true. Likewise, if that street bootlegger's bags operated according to Louis Vuitton's specs (same appearance, same durability), and he paid a licensing fee to Louis Vuitton, he could call them "authentic" and it would be true. That is, in fact, how lots of brand-name goods are distributed around the world: the brand owner licences local manufacturers to make them to the owner's specs.

Linux has been UNIX Certified ie partical distros (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10611082)

No reason why it cannot be again. No point cost is the problem linux is developing to quickly at the moment. Ie by the time certified version is created by linux standards it is out dated. Note BSD have the same problem UNIX Certified cannot handle a rapidly upgrading os where the kernel is being changed every day of the week leading to monthly versions. Maybe kernel version 2.8 when Linus has ran out of features to add to the linux kernel Certified would be the only missing feature then it might happen.

Unix Certified has nothing to do with the history of the OS. All it is that a OS meets a partical standard and style of interfaces for cross compad between all unixes. Note Microsoft could apply for UNIX Certified Windows XP if it was number one truely UNIX compad and number two Windows XP pasted the flaw test.(There is no reson why windows does not have it other than Microsoft software not being up to scrach because XP is based on a UNIX made a long time ago)

Unix Certificed cause companys to get into so many month upgrade systems on there source code.

Open Group "UNIX(TM)" perverted by greed (5, Insightful)

HighOrbit (631451) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610487)

IIRC, the orginal idea behind the UNIX trademark being given to the Open Group was so they would "protect" the UNIX name by making sure that anything calling itself "UNIX" would have to meet certain inter-operability standards. You could only license the UNIX(TM) name if your product met some strict standards.

That *would* have been a GOOD THING(TM). The problem is they charge mega-$$$ for certification and license royalties. They charge much much more than their costs and reap a huge profit on each certification. This basically freezes out any free/open unix-like system and it also is a barrier to entry for a start-up who would otherwise meet the standard. With a little work, there are few reasons why FreeBSD (for instance) would not be able to meet the standard, but that would require mega-bucks to be handed over to the Open Group and few open source project have that kind of money.

Cheers to IBM for meeting the standard. Jeers to Open Group for being a bunch of greedy bastards and locking out Free Software.

Re:Open Group "UNIX(TM)" perverted by greed (2, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610643)

``The problem is they charge mega-$$$ for certification''

A lot of otherwise useful certification programs have that problem. It makes me wonder why free certifications don't have more mindshare. Actually, it would be a Good Thing if charging a lot for certification were not allowed. Unfortunately, too few people really care about interoperability. They only care if things work with their system of choice (be it Linux, Windows, GNU, Word, or whatever).

Re:Open Group "UNIX(TM)" perverted by greed (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610884)

Free certifications don't have the mindshare because checking for compliance with a detailed specification is a non-trivial task. A test suite needs to be developed, and it needs to be run by a human (some parts of the specification can be checked automatically, others can't). Both of these cost money. The easiest way to recoup this money is to charge people for the certification. If you can suggest an alternate way of funding this kind of activity, then perhaps you should.

Re: greed ... or need? (2, Insightful)

LarryWest42 (220323) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610931)

Fair enough criticism, but how would you propose that these certifying groups be supported?

Taxes? Bake sales? Fund-raising drives?

Re:Open Group "UNIX(TM)" perverted by greed (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610966)

It is unfortunate that things are this way. However, Open/Free OSs can still support the standards even if they dont do the certification. This certianly helps software to be re-used and easily ported across OSs and could save a lot of time by avoiding having to do extensive porting of an app to each OS.

Re:Open Group "UNIX(TM)" perverted by greed (2, Interesting)

CaptainPinko (753849) | more than 9 years ago | (#10611008)

I believe part of being a UNIX is having a large company to be held accountable for the software: no room for M$-style EULAs. Basically AFAIK if you get a UNIX you know you can sue the pants off of the company if it fux up. How the hell would any free or even low-cost *nix be able to meet that requirement? Frankly, the reason that people like Linx\BSD is because they are good and cheap... they are cheap because they have few costs... ergo free Unix is self-contradictory.

Please note (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610514)

That SCO, the self purported "owners of the UNIX operating system," are behind IBM in meeting the latest UNIX standards.

Apple Lawsuit (2, Insightful)

buckhead_buddy (186384) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610571)

Apple did get it's old Unix-for-Mac product "A/UX" certified as a real Unix. But for a long time Apple described Mac OS X as "Unix-like", later it used the term "Unix based" technology. The Open Group filed a lawsuit against Apple for using this terminology back in 2001 and this was still winding its way through the court and negotiation system as late as June 2004. I have no idea what the state of things is today, but Apple got very nasty during these "negotiations" claiming that the word Unix itself doesn't denote a strict set of standards. At some point people were talking about Apple having to pay huge fines or the Open Group losing the use of Unix as a trademark as the only two outcomes of this trial.

Whatever happened, I doubt Apple will go after the certification of Unix 2003.

Re:Apple Lawsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610773)

Seeing that OS X has Unix certified by the Open Group already, I don't see how this could still be a big problem.

Finally SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610612)

Gone are the days with 2-3 news items regarding SCO.

OS/400 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10610631)

I recall some time back IBM made a little bit of noise about how technically OS/400 could be branded as a UNIX because it provided enough of the required APIs in the specification, but chose not to do it because it would cause confusion in the marketplace. (Although, following that line of logic, it doesn't seem reasonable that MVS has a UNIX personality when OS/400 doesn't).

dogged success (2, Funny)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610680)

Now IBM's "lost AIX source code" makes sense: they actually pulled off, at the Unix Certification, the old fantasy of "the dog ate my homework"!

Linux Standards (1)

jd (1658) | more than 9 years ago | (#10610912)

Linux may not have the "Unix 2003 standard" label, but Linux Weekly News [lwn.net] reports that Linus has now declared a pre-patch release naming standard! After the confusion surrounding the 2.6.9 pre-patch naming conventions, Linus has created an important Standards Document outlining the new naming policy. In honor of this event, Linux kernels will now be entitled "Woozy Numbat".

MS Windows (2, Funny)

ChiralSoftware (743411) | more than 9 years ago | (#10611005)

I wonder why MS doesn't get its Server 2003 Unix-certified. If they really want to break into the server business, that would be a logical thing for them to do, and they have the resources to do it. Yes, funny as it sounds, there's no reason why Windows Server 2003 couldn't become an officially-certified Unix, just like Linux could if someone bothered to take it through the certification process.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...